It might be better to say “what were they?” in an article addressed to readers of to-day, since the name in its old sense will not be found in the most recent writings of Packard, Comstock, Chapman, Grote, and other authors. However, the group is adopted in our latest check-list (Nos. 877–1459), although without its name, Prof. Smith stating that he could not limit the group to his satisfaction. Also, as recently as 1893, Dr. Packard published an “Attempt at a new classification of the Bombyces,” including in the group all the families formerly included, but altering their sequence. Following the arrangement of suborders proposed by Prof. Comstock, and the division into superfamilies which I have suggested and which Mr. Grote has adopted with improved nomenclature, let us see where the families of “Bombyces” fall.

The questien asked by Mr. Slingerland in his very interesting paper in the Can. Ent., XXVII, p. 301, is in great part answered by himself. I think he shows very conclusively that subgothica, Haw., is correctly used for our American species, and has given us a very full statement of the evidence upon which he bases his conclusions, thus removing the matter from the domain of unsupported opinion. From the nature of the case, and in the absence of Haworth's actual type specimen, the proof cannot be absolute; but until something more definite is supplied, I think the conclusions of the paper on the identity of subgothica, must be accepted. As to the synonymy, I think Mr. Slingerland is also correct. I have not found the A. O. U. Code clear on this matter, though it is as to genera in the same case; but, after consulting Dr. C. Hart Merriam, a recognized authority on questions of nomenclature, I am assured that Guenée's name jaculifera must sink as a synonym.

In the following list 283 species are enumerated, 34 not determined specifically, and there are 8 species unknown, making a total of 325 species. I am much indebted to Mr. W. H. Harrington for his very great kindness and valued assistance in identifying these insects.

The determined and energetic fight carried on by the miller, the entomologist, and the Local Government in 1889, to stamp out this destructive mill pest in Ontario, is too fresh in the memory of those who witnessed that outbreak to warrant a repetition of the particulars. Suffice it to say that the flour moth is still very abundant in certain Canadian mills. I have received it recently in flour sent me direct from a milling firm in Valleyfield, Quebec, with an urgent appeal for help. The mill has been obliged to shut down several times during the present year to clean out the enormous accumulations of matted flour and webs in the spouts and elevator legs. The mill is a new one and has been running a very short time. It is said the pest came from a neighboring firm. My experience with this moth in California and other places convinces me that it is the worst pest millers have to combat, and this note should be a signal warning to all those interested in the milling business. I have also recently discovered the same pest in Southwestern New York State, where it has done considerable mischief this year, and is still spreading. It has occasioned much loss on the Pacific Coast also the present season. If something is not done to arrest and destroy thisadvancing enemy in the United States and Canada, I predict very serious results to the milling industries of both countries.

In the “Report of the Entomologist of the United States Department of Agriculture for the year 1880,” Professor Comstock described (p. 304) an extremely injurious insect of the family Coccidæ, to which he gave the name Aspidiotus Perniciosus, or “the pernicious scale,” and he stated that this insect attacked a very large number of deciduous fruittrees in California, “excepting peach, apricot, and black tartarean cherry.” Later, this pest was observed, described and discussed by many persons interested in horticulture, and in America it is generally known by the trivial name of “the San José scale,” and is looked on as a most troublesome thing.

I have read with interest the paper by Mr. Slingerland, Can. Ent., XXVII., p.p. 301–308, and as my name is occasionally mentioned, I trust to the courtesy of our Editor to allow me to reply.

The genus Exomalopsis, Spin., was founded in 1851 on a couple of bees from Para, Brazil. Three years later, F. Smith described three additional species, also from Brazil. More recently, species have been described or recorded from Cuba, Jamaica, and Mexico, but none hitherto from the United States. One species, E. pulchella, Cr., has a remarkable range, being found in Cuba (Cresson), Jamaica (Fox), and Lower California (Fox). I myself have taken it in Jamaica.